I have lots of cassettes tape albums that I don't have on CDs. I've been thinking of recording them to DAT tape using 20bit/48khz. After experimenting, they sound pretty good. I believe that analog cassettes degrade with each use and so preserving them in a digital format would be best. I'm not sure if this is cheaper than actually buying the CD versions instead. Blank DAT tapes can run $5 - $10 each. Has anyone else backed up their cassette tapes digitally?
Backing up cassettes tapes to DAT
- Thread starter SalesOps
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
DAT is perhaps the least reliable format you can record. Avoid it at ALL COSTS!
Cassettes will last a lot longer.
If you want to back up your cassette tapes, invest in a quality audio interface (like a RME) and learn how to record with your computer. Digital files are way easier to preserve and enjoy than a DAT.
Cassettes will last a lot longer.
If you want to back up your cassette tapes, invest in a quality audio interface (like a RME) and learn how to record with your computer. Digital files are way easier to preserve and enjoy than a DAT.
C
CD-Rs are almost as bad as DAT, long term.
It is best to burn discs as slow as you can stand-I use a maximum of 4x for anything I care about. Remember, the CD is an analog medium storing digital data-recordable CDs are just light and dark areas burned into dye. Conventional CDs have lands and pits, but are still measured according to the same standards.
Conventional recordable CD-R media uses an aluminized substrate printed on to a polycarbonate disc. This coating will flake off and get scratched through normal handling, age, UV exposure, heat exposure. I've seen many examples of this in the field, and it's exacerbated by using ancient CD-R media (in fact, using such media is how I learned about all the failure modes!)
Recordable CDs usually have a lifespan of 3 months to 10 years-the only exceptions I know to this rule are the Taiyo Yuden Lacquer Coated CD-Rs, also sometimes sold as JVC. I have had zero failures of any since 2009. It's certainly possible for discs that are stored correctly to last longer, but no one who cares considers them a proper archival storage medium. Triple redundant hard drives storing .wav files along with detailed text files is the norm. Plus any other ancillary information.
CD-Rs are almost as bad as DAT, long term.
It is best to burn discs as slow as you can stand-I use a maximum of 4x for anything I care about. Remember, the CD is an analog medium storing digital data-recordable CDs are just light and dark areas burned into dye. Conventional CDs have lands and pits, but are still measured according to the same standards.
Conventional recordable CD-R media uses an aluminized substrate printed on to a polycarbonate disc. This coating will flake off and get scratched through normal handling, age, UV exposure, heat exposure. I've seen many examples of this in the field, and it's exacerbated by using ancient CD-R media (in fact, using such media is how I learned about all the failure modes!)
Recordable CDs usually have a lifespan of 3 months to 10 years-the only exceptions I know to this rule are the Taiyo Yuden Lacquer Coated CD-Rs, also sometimes sold as JVC. I have had zero failures of any since 2009. It's certainly possible for discs that are stored correctly to last longer, but no one who cares considers them a proper archival storage medium. Triple redundant hard drives storing .wav files along with detailed text files is the norm. Plus any other ancillary information.
j!m
Super Member
I’ve not had any failures yet. I have one CDR of my band from 2001 that still looks and sounds perfect (Quantegy brand). Tons of others of unknown age and various brands (mostly Sony)
I think the same heat and neglect that can kill a cassette will kill a CDR and can do in a pressed CD as well. I have seen delaminating and rot of pressed CDs too…
hard drives are great but you need a lot of them. Redundancy is required with storage physically in other areas to isolate them. That’s kind of a drag. But it works.
As to the cassettes: I have many I recorded in the 80’s that still sound fine. (TDK SA) most of my pre-recorded tapes from the same era were delicately placed in a dumpster.
I think the same heat and neglect that can kill a cassette will kill a CDR and can do in a pressed CD as well. I have seen delaminating and rot of pressed CDs too…
hard drives are great but you need a lot of them. Redundancy is required with storage physically in other areas to isolate them. That’s kind of a drag. But it works.
As to the cassettes: I have many I recorded in the 80’s that still sound fine. (TDK SA) most of my pre-recorded tapes from the same era were delicately placed in a dumpster.
DAT is not a reliable medium. The expansion and contraction of the base film of a DAT cassette in use is slightly greater than the tracking marks recorded onto the tape. This is an example of "cutting edge" technology were engineers pushed things just a bit beyond the limits of reliability.
CDs and CD-Rs are digital media. Both are far more reliable than than DAT but only if properly manufactured. CDs use aluminum as a mirror layer. CD-Rs use either silver alloy or, in some cases, gold as a mirror layer. In all cases, the mirror layer is not "printed." It is electro-plated in a vacuum chamber. The fact that there is a tracking groove pressed into the polycarbonate of a CD-R does not make it analogue. CD-Rs that are properly manufactured and properly recorded so that there are no C2 errors and C1 errors fall below 10, will last many years if kept out of sunlight and UV light and kept in the right environmental conditions of low humidity and heat and no great fluctuations in temperature. The actual life--determined by the number of errors accumulated over time--depends on the dye chosen. Phthalocyanine dyes are the most durable. Arrhenius testing suggests that good CD-Rs with phthalocyanine dyes will last up to 125 years. Good CD-Rs with cyanine or azo-cyanine dyes used by Taiyo Yuden will last slighly beyond 50 years. DVD+/-R media all use cyanine or azo-cyanine dye because phthalocyanine is not as good for the data density required by these media.
CDs and CD-Rs are digital media. Both are far more reliable than than DAT but only if properly manufactured. CDs use aluminum as a mirror layer. CD-Rs use either silver alloy or, in some cases, gold as a mirror layer. In all cases, the mirror layer is not "printed." It is electro-plated in a vacuum chamber. The fact that there is a tracking groove pressed into the polycarbonate of a CD-R does not make it analogue. CD-Rs that are properly manufactured and properly recorded so that there are no C2 errors and C1 errors fall below 10, will last many years if kept out of sunlight and UV light and kept in the right environmental conditions of low humidity and heat and no great fluctuations in temperature. The actual life--determined by the number of errors accumulated over time--depends on the dye chosen. Phthalocyanine dyes are the most durable. Arrhenius testing suggests that good CD-Rs with phthalocyanine dyes will last up to 125 years. Good CD-Rs with cyanine or azo-cyanine dyes used by Taiyo Yuden will last slighly beyond 50 years. DVD+/-R media all use cyanine or azo-cyanine dye because phthalocyanine is not as good for the data density required by these media.
I have perhaps 1000 pre recorded cassettes. Perhaps 10% represent titles that I would be sad to lose. The rest fall below that, many far below that.
Perhaps I will digitize these, but as they have lasted 20-40 years, with 90% being playable (not suffering from binding in the shells, or broken splices), I am in no hurry.
If digitized, I will be creating .wav files and storing on multiple HD's. HD storage cost is low enough now. I did digitize a large collection of LP's 20 years ago. I burned them to CD-R as .wav files. Many are unplayable, because of media failure brought on by storing them in a hot attic.
Some of my cassettes were also mistreated in this way, but generally they have remained as playable as they were long ago. Quality cassettes that I recorded 40 years ago, on Maxell or TDK Cobalt Ferric blanks, despite living in my car for years, still play fine.
Perhaps I will digitize these, but as they have lasted 20-40 years, with 90% being playable (not suffering from binding in the shells, or broken splices), I am in no hurry.
If digitized, I will be creating .wav files and storing on multiple HD's. HD storage cost is low enough now. I did digitize a large collection of LP's 20 years ago. I burned them to CD-R as .wav files. Many are unplayable, because of media failure brought on by storing them in a hot attic.
Some of my cassettes were also mistreated in this way, but generally they have remained as playable as they were long ago. Quality cassettes that I recorded 40 years ago, on Maxell or TDK Cobalt Ferric blanks, despite living in my car for years, still play fine.
twiiii
Lunatic Member
If you want to record to a physical medium how about using a CD recorder or DVD recorder. Like other have said DAT is very undependable. I had one and dumped it when the tapes started squeaking going thru the guides even after cleaning the machine thoroughly. Recording on CD with a thin Jewel box and making colored label copy costs under $4.00 each.
I saw some Roland Hi-Res portable recorders on ebay. My concern is the analog input/outputs, if it has any.
I guess you are talking about the R-07. Yes, it has analogue inputs and outputs, it's in the specs. These are the same type of inputs as on your laptop though, these are not great inputs and there is probably not much to gain by using it instead of your laptop, except maybe the small size. The Zoom H4n has better inputs with better connectors, and it is a popular choice among handheld recorders.
But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, you can have a USB interface card with similar or better quality for less money. It is probably a better option if you don't need a self-contained recorder for other uses.
But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, you can have a USB interface card with similar or better quality for less money. It is probably a better option if you don't need a self-contained recorder for other uses.
Last edited:
lini
just me...
SO: While I find recording with one of those cute, little digital field recorders (Sony PCM-M10 in my case, but the Roland R-05 also was a good one in the compact segment...) more convenient than recording with a USB sound interface, mind you, that flash memory cards also are somewhat limited in terms of data retention. So for long-term archieval purposes you'd still need to copy the files onto other storage media. For that purpose I'd suggest at least one USB hard drive plus M-Disc BD-Rs or two USB hard drives (ideally with two different HDD models).
And regarding the USB hard drives, mind you, that in the meantime there are two variants - one uses conventional SATA HDDs plus an additional interface with USB<->SATA bridge, the other HDDs with USB port. Personally I'd rather go for the former, because in case of USB port failure (e.g. due to ESD) one can still put the SATA HDD into another external drive case (or use it with one of those USB<->SATA dongles/docks...).
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
And regarding the USB hard drives, mind you, that in the meantime there are two variants - one uses conventional SATA HDDs plus an additional interface with USB<->SATA bridge, the other HDDs with USB port. Personally I'd rather go for the former, because in case of USB port failure (e.g. due to ESD) one can still put the SATA HDD into another external drive case (or use it with one of those USB<->SATA dongles/docks...).
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
dr*audio
Fish fingers and custard!
All you need is a good audio interface and you can record direct to your computer.
https://www.amazon.com/Focusrite-Scarlett-Audio-Interface-Tools/dp/B07QR73T66
https://www.amazon.com/Focusrite-Scarlett-Audio-Interface-Tools/dp/B07QR73T66
It is an interesting consideration, which can seem off-topicat first sight but, since we are talking about data preservation, a discussion is certainly worthwhile.
As a standard procedure, yes, it is a good idea to keep the original media where they belong, namely in the recorder. They have properties that make them particularly suitable for field recording (small size, convenience, low current draw, etc.) but they are not usually good candidates for long-term storage, if only because of the cost per megabyte and their comparatively low capacity per media, which would make library management impractical..
As a side note, it is a very bad idea to toss the originals after digitizing or copying them to the new fashionable format. The history of preservation is full of horror stories of entire collections lost because the copy had not been processed properly or had been recorded on media that proved defective only after the originals had been sent to the tip. I don't know if that was SalesOp's intention, but if it was, forget it!
Another all-important rule of data preservation is nicknamed 3-2-1: every file must exist in at least 3 copies, at least on 2 separate media, of which at least one is stored in a separate place so that it survives a fire (does Universal or OVH ring a bell?). This rule is the best protection we have to avoid problems, and it can be applied to every case, ranging from nationwide data repositories to home offices or your family archives. No need to store data on sophisticated RAID clusters (which have their usefulness too, just not for long-term archiving), you can save to lowly USB drives and be safe as long as they don't fail all at the same time - a very unlikely event with the 3-2-1 routine.
Of course it is also important to follow the technological evolution in order to save the files to the newer formats/interface standards, so that they are still playable when USB or the current file formats become obsolete. This takes more work than the 3-2-1, but is necessary if you plan to use your data in let's say, 20 years or more. The durability of a given media, such as self-erasure or chemical decay, is only secondary in this context, and having 3 copies in a format that you can no longer read would obviously be useless. Long-term storage is of primary importance for organizations that need durability, such as registers of birth for instance, and after a sizable number of catastrophic failures in the past they actually pay people to deal with all the associated issues.
On a smaller scale, if you use your data on a regular basis you often find yourself doing it almost inconsciously, as you quickly discover that open formats are better than proprietary formats when you have to move to new software, and as you copy your old files from obsolete parallel ATA or SCSI disks to SATA or USB disks for compatibility with your current computer and in the foreseeable future. It becomes instinctive.
So digitizing a cassette collection is a good idea, but it can be just a part of a an overall process that far exceeds the preservation of music. Of course you don't have to do the whole package, but it's a good opportunity to think about it.
Last edited:
lini
just me...
Yup, I think so, too. And I'm also with you in almost all points, with the exception of flash memory card price per capacity and manageability.
I.e., of course price per capacity isn't quite as low with flash cards as with HDDs, especially if the recorder is a bit older and only supports cards up to 32 GByte (= the limit of (micro)SDHC) - but even when those cards still were roundabout 11 Euro each, to me a capacity of ca. 30 hours in 24 bit / 48 kHz (L)PCM (in my view a reasonable resolution for digitising LPs and cassettes) per card already seemed quite ok for the price, so that I'd rather keep my digitised recordings on these and regard that as an additional backup instead of rewriting the cards over and over with new recordings, which would only reduce data retention, as that shrinks with flash memory cell wear level (*).
And I'd also deem ten cards per ca. 300 hours of music content still within reasonable limits in terms of manageability, unless one would have a really huge collection.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
*) Which of course isn't supposed to mean, that it wouldn't nevertheless be a good idea to copy the content from the card, erase/reformat the card, and copy the content back to the card every couple of years, in order to refresh the cell charges.
patient_ot
Super Member
If they are common albums that have been reissued on CD several times - then backing up old cassettes is a waste of time.
I also agree that DAT is not the format to use for this.
I also agree that DAT is not the format to use for this.